Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)

4. If big money didn't corrupt the electoral process, its existence is therefore not a loss to anyone

Reply to SCALA13 (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:59 PM

Nov 2012

That's working on your premises.

But perhaps your premises are incorrect; just maybe big money did corrupt the process, but did not discriminate between candidates who had an "R" or a "D" after their name.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How liberals may have lost last nite (repost). [View all] SCALA13 Nov 2012 OP

2-3 new SC appointments in the next four years likely. gcomeau Nov 2012 #1

scala13 rso Nov 2012 #10

that loss happened with the SC decision Enrique Nov 2012 #2

Amendment 65 passed in Colorado buczak Nov 2012 #3

Yup. Panasonic Nov 2012 #9

If big money didn't corrupt the electoral process, its existence is therefore not a loss to anyone NoOneMan Nov 2012 #4

the GOP, teabaggers, crazy conservatism lost bigtime last night noiretextatique Nov 2012 #5

scala13 rso Nov 2012 #6

You have to admit that there are plenty of rich assholes stinging from a baaaaad investment today. EnviroBat Nov 2012 #7

MAybe its Okay trublu992 Nov 2012 #8